Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance postulates that individuals, when
presented with evidence contrary to their worldview or situations in which they must
behave contrary to their worldview, experience "cognitive dissonance." Dissonance is
defined here as an "unpleasant state of tension." Individuals will try to relieve this
dissonance in one of two ways:

1.Increase the number of consistent cognitions _ In order to assimilate
inconsistent information to their worldview, individuals experiencing dissonance will
increase then number of consistent cognitions, thereby abating the dissonance.
This often involves rationalizing...i.e. myopic focus on facts, logic, or experience
which reinforces an existing worldview. In most instances, the offending
inconsistent cognitions are dismissed altogether as a result of this myopic focus
on extant consistent cognitions. This is called "rationalizing" because the individual
seeks out semi_logical conclusions using extant cognitions and newly created
consistent cognitions in order to find a way to invalidate the inconsistent
cognitions. The reader must understand that we are not talking about

2.Decrease the number of inconsistent cognitions _ Individuals change their
attitudes to compensate for inconsistent cognitions. Instead of rationalizing, the
individual excises the inconsistent cognitions from their worldview. This is more
consistent with mode 1 thinking. When presented with logic or facts inconsistent
with their worldview,

The following experiment, extracted from Principles of Psychology (Price, et al pg.
507), illustrates the reality of cognitive dissonance:

In one of the earliest experimental test of the theory of cognitive
dissonance, Festinger and J. Meririll Carlsmith (1959) had subjects
perform a very dull and boring task: the subjects had to place a
large number of spools on pegs on a board, turn each spool a
quarter turn, take the spool off the pegs and then put them back on.
As you can imagine, subject's attitudes toward this task were highly
negative. The subjects were then induced to tell a female "subject,"
who was actually an accomplice of the experimenter, that this boring
task he would be performing was really interesting and enjoyable.
Some of the subjects were offered $20 to tell this falsehood; others
were offered only $1. Almost all of the subjects agreed to walk into
the waiting room and persuade the subject accomplice that the
boring experiment would be fun.

Obviously , there is a discrepancy here between attitudes and
behavior. Although the task was boring,subjects tried to convince
another person it was fun. Why? To the subjects who received
$20, the reason was clear; the wanted the money. The larger
payment provided an important external justification consistent with
the conterattitudinal behavior. There was no dissonance, and the
subjects experienced no need to change their attitudes. But for the
subjects who received only $1, there was much less external
justification and more dissonance. How could subjects reduce the
dissonance? They could do so by changing their attitude toward the
task. This is exactly what happened. When the subjects were
asked to evaluate the experiment, the subjects who were paid only
$1 rated the tedious task as more fun and enjoyable than did either
the subjects who were paid $20 to lie or the subjects in a control
group who were not required to lie about the task. Since the
external justification __the $1 payment__was too low to justify the
counter attitudinal behavior, the subjects simply changed their
attitudes to make them consistent with behavior.

One can see in this experiment how easily people rationalize situations to make them
consistent with their worldview.

There is a connection between mode 2 thinking and cognitive dissonance. Emotionally
based thinking is much more susceptible to facts and logic which contradict the
justification for that thinking or emotional worldview. Factually or logically inconsistent
cognitions are countered not with consistent factual/logical cognitions, but with
emotional cognitions. For the mode 2 thinker, the universe is not a matter of logic and
fact, it is a matter of emotion, and when presented with logic or facts that contradict a
strongly held emotion, they respond not with a logical/factual refutation of that
contradiction, but with an emotional refutation. The mode 2 thinker refutes
emotionally, not logically. This is why one cannot debate or discuss logic and facts
with mode 2 thinkers. Any reasoned discussion or debate is met with emotional
discussion or debate. It is like trying to debate with a child...they simply don't hear
you.

How can one counter emotional arguments? Answer: It is not possible. Mode 2
thinkers cannot be persuaded rationally...i.e. with facts and logic that contradict their
worldview. Only rational individuals can be persuaded with contradictory facts and
logic.

The question is this then: How does one persuade an irrational person? The simple
answer is....conditioning. Mode 2 thinkers can only be persuaded by subtle
conditioning, by adding the gist of the argument that is to persuade them as a subtext
to the plots of the stories that they consume as entertainment. Vicarious identification
seems to be the only effective means of persuading mode 2 thinkers. One on one
debates....ineffective. Informational propaganda...ineffective. Manipulating the story
characters with whom they identify and controlling the means of propagating this
stories (movies, television, etc)......very effective.

The Left do not disagree with the Right intellectually...with few exceptions, they are
virtually incapable of intellectual disagreement. The Left disagree emotionally.
Really, this is a psychological and not ideological phenomenon. It is a mass neurosis
of sorts. When millions of people cling to worldviews which have failed for the last 80
years, something is wrong. When people celebrate degeneration in defense of
freedom of speech, there is something wrong. When people elevate the murder of
innocent unborn children to a "right" but simultaneously fight against the application of
capital punishment for heinous crimes, something is wrong. Liberalism is so full of
logical and factual contradictions that one wonders how a rational person can
subscribe to such a worldview. Only mode 2 thinkers can rationalize such things. The
mind of the liberal is literally shut off to logic and facts.

Liberalism (or what it has come to connote), is really the result of decades of
emotional conditioning which has left those conditioned without the faculty of critical
thought. Certainly those emotions are there to begin with. Humans are animals. It is
the taming of our base animalistic impulses that makes civilization possible. When
those taming influences are supplanted by devices that condition and reinforce the
animalistic impulses, civilization crumbles. This is why morality and social structure are
so important (stating the obvious in this age is iconoclastic..lol). The point here is that
what has happened over the last 40 years is that our consumption of
entertainment__television primarily, movies secondarily, and in some cases novels__has
had the negative effect of conditioning either by design or inadvertently, emotions and
worldviews inconsistent with reality. These condititioned fantasy and utopian
worldviews can result in societal collapse. Cognitive dissonance is but one vehicle in
the war of the mind.

Cults can easily be explained in terms of cognitive dissonance. All inconsistent
cognitions are dealt with by violence. In a cult, inconsistent cognitions are dealt with
by shunning, by starving, by confinement, etc.... Liberalism does the same thing!
Political Correctness, the illegitimate step_child of liberalism, is cultlike in its
establishment of correct speech. This is what cults do..they prohibit certain words and
discussion of certain topics.

The Left are essentially a "cult of cognitive dissonance."

Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance postulates that individuals, when
presented with evidence contrary to their worldview or situations in which they must
behave contrary to their worldview, experience "cognitive dissonance." Dissonance is
defined here as an "unpleasant state of tension." Individuals will try to relieve this
dissonance in one of two ways:

1.Increase the number of consistent cognitions _ In order to assimilate
inconsistent information to their worldview, individuals experiencing dissonance will
increase then number of consistent cognitions, thereby abating the dissonance.
This often involves rationalizing...i.e. myopic focus on facts, logic, or experience
which reinforces an existing worldview. In most instances, the offending
inconsistent cognitions are dismissed altogether as a result of this myopic focus
on extant consistent cognitions. This is called "rationalizing" because the individual
seeks out semi_logical conclusions using extant cognitions and newly created
consistent cognitions in order to find a way to invalidate the inconsistent
cognitions. The reader must understand that we are not talking about

2.Decrease the number of inconsistent cognitions _ Individuals change their
attitudes to compensate for inconsistent cognitions. Instead of rationalizing, the
individual excises the inconsistent cognitions from their worldview. This is more
consistent with mode 1 thinking. When presented with logic or facts inconsistent
with their worldview,

The following experiment, extracted from Principles of Psychology (Price, et al pg.
507), illustrates the reality of cognitive dissonance:

In one of the earliest experimental test of the theory of cognitive
dissonance, Festinger and J. Meririll Carlsmith (1959) had subjects
perform a very dull and boring task: the subjects had to place a
large number of spools on pegs on a board, turn each spool a
quarter turn, take the spool off the pegs and then put them back on.
As you can imagine, subject's attitudes toward this task were highly
negative. The subjects were then induced to tell a female "subject,"
who was actually an accomplice of the experimenter, that this boring
task he would be performing was really interesting and enjoyable.
Some of the subjects were offered $20 to tell this falsehood; others
were offered only $1. Almost all of the subjects agreed to walk into
the waiting room and persuade the subject accomplice that the
boring experiment would be fun.

Obviously , there is a discrepancy here between attitudes and
behavior. Although the task was boring,subjects tried to convince
another person it was fun. Why? To the subjects who received
$20, the reason was clear; the wanted the money. The larger
payment provided an important external justification consistent with
the conterattitudinal behavior. There was no dissonance, and the
subjects experienced no need to change their attitudes. But for the
subjects who received only $1, there was much less external
justification and more dissonance. How could subjects reduce the
dissonance? They could do so by changing their attitude toward the
task. This is exactly what happened. When the subjects were
asked to evaluate the experiment, the subjects who were paid only
$1 rated the tedious task as more fun and enjoyable than did either
the subjects who were paid $20 to lie or the subjects in a control
group who were not required to lie about the task. Since the
external justification __the $1 payment__was too low to justify the
counter attitudinal behavior, the subjects simply changed their
attitudes to make them consistent with behavior.

One can see in this experiment how easily people rationalize situations to make them
consistent with their worldview.

There is a connection between mode 2 thinking and cognitive dissonance. Emotionally
based thinking is much more susceptible to facts and logic which contradict the
justification for that thinking or emotional worldview. Factually or logically inconsistent
cognitions are countered not with consistent factual/logical cognitions, but with
emotional cognitions. For the mode 2 thinker, the universe is not a matter of logic and
fact, it is a matter of emotion, and when presented with logic or facts that contradict a
strongly held emotion, they respond not with a logical/factual refutation of that
contradiction, but with an emotional refutation. The mode 2 thinker refutes
emotionally, not logically. This is why one cannot debate or discuss logic and facts
with mode 2 thinkers. Any reasoned discussion or debate is met with emotional
discussion or debate. It is like trying to debate with a child...they simply don't hear
you.

How can one counter emotional arguments? Answer: It is not possible. Mode 2
thinkers cannot be persuaded rationally...i.e. with facts and logic that contradict their
worldview. Only rational individuals can be persuaded with contradictory facts and
logic.

The question is this then: How does one persuade an irrational person? The simple
answer is....conditioning. Mode 2 thinkers can only be persuaded by subtle
conditioning, by adding the gist of the argument that is to persuade them as a subtext
to the plots of the stories that they consume as entertainment. Vicarious identification
seems to be the only effective means of persuading mode 2 thinkers. One on one
debates....ineffective. Informational propaganda...ineffective. Manipulating the story
characters with whom they identify and controlling the means of propagating this
stories (movies, television, etc)......very effective.

The Left do not disagree with the Right intellectually...with few exceptions, they are
virtually incapable of intellectual disagreement. The Left disagree emotionally.
Really, this is a psychological and not ideological phenomenon. It is a mass neurosis
of sorts. When millions of people cling to worldviews which have failed for the last 80
years, something is wrong. When people celebrate degeneration in defense of
freedom of speech, there is something wrong. When people elevate the murder of
innocent unborn children to a "right" but simultaneously fight against the application of
capital punishment for heinous crimes, something is wrong. Liberalism is so full of
logical and factual contradictions that one wonders how a rational person can
subscribe to such a worldview. Only mode 2 thinkers can rationalize such things. The
mind of the liberal is literally shut off to logic and facts.

Liberalism (or what it has come to connote), is really the result of decades of
emotional conditioning which has left those conditioned without the faculty of critical
thought. Certainly those emotions are there to begin with. Humans are animals. It is
the taming of our base animalistic impulses that makes civilization possible. When
those taming influences are supplanted by devices that condition and reinforce the
animalistic impulses, civilization crumbles. This is why morality and social structure are
so important (stating the obvious in this age is iconoclastic..lol). The point here is that
what has happened over the last 40 years is that our consumption of
entertainment__television primarily, movies secondarily, and in some cases novels__has
had the negative effect of conditioning either by design or inadvertently, emotions and
worldviews inconsistent with reality. These condititioned fantasy and utopian
worldviews can result in societal collapse. Cognitive dissonance is but one vehicle in
the war of the mind.

Cults can easily be explained in terms of cognitive dissonance. All inconsistent
cognitions are dealt with by violence. In a cult, inconsistent cognitions are dealt with
by shunning, by starving, by confinement, etc.... Liberalism does the same thing!
Political Correctness, the illegitimate step_child of liberalism, is cultlike in its
establishment of correct speech. This is what cults do..they prohibit certain words and
discussion of certain topics.

The Left are essentially a "cult of cognitive dissonance."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Fallacies of Distraction

False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options

Definition: A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more
options. A false
dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.

Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

Examples:

(i) Either you're for me or against me.

(ii) America: love it or leave it.

(iii) Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.

(iv) Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.

Proof:

Identify the options given and show (with an example) that
there is an additional option.

From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false

(argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Definition:

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore
true.
Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is
therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma since it assumes that all propositions
must
either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof."
(p.
59)

Examples:

(i) Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.

(ii) Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't.

(iii) Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false.

Proof:

Identify the proposition in question. Argue that it may be true even though we don't know
whether it is
or isn't.

Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn

Definition:

In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable
events
is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the IF_THEN operator.

Examples:

(i) If we pass laws against fully_automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on
all
weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a
communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully_automatic weapons.

(ii) You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are
spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your
earnings.

(iii) If I make an exception for you then I have to make an exception for everyone.

Proof:

Identify the proposition P being refuted and identify the final event in the series of events. Then
show
that this final event need not occur as a consequence of P.

Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition

Definition:

Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. The reader is
expected to accept or reject both together, when in reality one is acceptable while the other is
not. A
complex question is an illegitimate use of the AND operator.

Examples:

(i) You should support home education and the God_given right of parents to raise their children
according to their own beliefs.

(ii) Do you support freedom and the right to bear arms?

(iii) Have you stopped using illegal sales practices? (This asks two questions: did you use illegal
practises, and did you stop?)

Proof:

Identify the two propositions illegitimately conjoined and show that believing one does not mean
that you have to believe the other.

Appeals to Motives in Place of Support

Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force

(argumentum ad baculum)

Definition:

The reader is told that unpleasant consequences will follow
if they do not agree with the author.

Examples:

(i) You had better agree that the new company policy is the
best bet if you expect to keep your job.
(ii) NAFTA is wrong, and if you don't vote against NAFTA
then we will vote you out of office.

Proof:

Identify the threat and the proposition and argue that the
threat is unrelated to the truth or falsity of the proposition.

Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy

(argumentum ad misercordiam)

Definition:

The reader is told to agree to the proposition because of the
pitiful state of the author.

Examples:

(i) How can you say that's out? It was so close, and besides,
I'm down ten games to two.
(ii) We hope you'll accept our recommendations. We spent
the last three months working extra time on it.

Proof:

Identify the proposition and the appeal to pity and argue that
the pitiful state of the arguer has nothing to do with the truth
of the proposition.

Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences

(argumentum ad consequentiam)

Definition:

The author points to the disagreeable consequences of
holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is
false.

Example:

(i) You can't agree that evolution is true, because if it were,
then we would be no better than monkeys and apes.
(ii) You must believe in God, for otherwise life would have
no meaning. (Perhaps, but it is equally possible that since
life has no meaning that God does not exist.)

Proof:

Identify the consequences to and argue that what we want to
be the case does not affect what is in fact the case.

Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author

Definition:

Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral
goodness to believing the proposition.

Examples:

(i) Right thinking Canadians will agree with me that we
should have another free vote on capital punishment.
(ii) A reasonable person would agree that our income
statement is too low.
(iii) Senator Turner claims that the new tax rate will reduce
the deficit. (Here, the use of "claims" implies that what
Turner says is false.)
(iv) The proposal is likely to be resisted by the bureaucrats
on Parliament Hill. (Compare this to: The proposal is likely
to be rejected by officials on Parliament Hill.)

Proof:

Identify the prejudicial terms used (e.g. "Right thinking
Canadians" or "A reasonable person"). Show that disagreeing
with the conclusion does not make a person "wrong thinking"
or "unreasonable".

Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true

(argumentum ad populum)

Definition:

A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to
be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust)
sector of the population.
This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion"
because emotional appeals often sway the population as a
whole.

Examples:

(i) If you were beautiful, you could live like this, so buy
Buty_EZ and become beautiful. (Here, the appeal is to the
"beautiful people".)
(ii) Polls suggest that the Liberals will form a majority
government, so you may as well vote for them.
(iii) Everyone knows that the Earth is flat, so why do you
persist in your outlandish claims?

Changing the Subject

Attacking the Person: (1) the person's character is attacked (2) the person's circumstances are
noted
(3) the person does not practice what is preached

(argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favorable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practice what he
preaches.

Examples:

(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
circumstantial)
(iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Proof:

Identify the attack and show that the character or
circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
or falsity of the proposition being defended.

Appeal to Authority: (1) the authority is not an expert in the field (2) experts in the field
disagree (3)
the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious

(argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favorable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practice what he
preaches.

Examples:

(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
circumstantial)
(iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Proof:

Identify the attack and show that the character or
circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
or falsity of the proposition being defended.

Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named

Definition:

The authority in question is not named. This is a type of
appeal to authority because when an authority is not named
it is impossible to confirm that the authority is an expert.
However the fallacy is so common it deserves special
mention.

A variation on this fallacy is the appeal to rumor. Because
the source of a rumor is typically not known, it is not
possible to determine whether to believe the rumor. Very
often false and harmful rumors are deliberately started n
order to discredit an opponent.

Examples:

(i) A government official said today that the new gun law
will be proposed tomorrow.
(ii) Experts agree that the best way to prevent nuclear war
is to prepare for it.
(iii) It is held that there are more than two million needless
operations conducted every year.
(iv) Rumor has it that the Prime Minster will declare
another holiday in October.

Proof:

Argue that because we don't know the source of the
information we have no way to evaluate the reliability of the
information.

Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to
affect the
truth of the conclusion

Definition:

The manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is
taken to affect the likelihood that the conclusion is true.

Examples:

(i) Nixon lost the presidential debate because of the sweat on
his forehead.
(ii) Trudeau knows how to move a crowd. He must be right.
(iii) Why don't you take the advice of that nicely dressed
young man?

Proof:

While it is true that the manner in which an argument is
presented will affect whether people believe that its
conclusion is true, nonetheless, the truth of the conclusion
does not depend on the manner in which the argument is
presented. In order to show that this fallacy is being
committed, show that the style in this case does not affect the
truth or falsity of the conclusion.

Inductive Fallacies

Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a
population

Definition:

The size of the sample is too small to support the conclusion.

Examples:

(i) Fred, the Australian, stole my wallet. Thus, all Australians
are thieves. (Of course, we shouldn't judge all Australians on
the basis of one example.)
(ii) I asked six of my friends what they thought of the new
spending restraints and they agreed it is a good idea. The
new restraints are therefore generally popular.

Proof:

Identify the size of the sample and the size of the population,
then show that the sample size is too small. Note: a formal
proof would require a mathematical calculation. This is the
subject of probability theory. For now, you must rely on
common sense.

Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole

Definition:

The sample used in an inductive inference is relevantly
different from the population as a whole.

Examples:

(i) To see how Canadians will vote in the next election we
polled a hundred people in Calgary. This shows conclusively
that the Reform Party will sweep the polls. (People in
Calgary tend to be more conservative, and hence more likely
to vote Reform, than people in the rest of the country.)
(ii) The apples on the top of the box look good. The entire
box of apples must be good. (Of course, the rotten apples are
hidden beneath the surface.)

Proof:

Show how the sample is relevantly different from the
population as a whole, then show that because the sample is
different, the conclusion is probably different.

False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar

Definition:

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to
be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so
also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two
objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether
they both have property P.

Examples:

(i) Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the
head in order to make them work, so must employees.
(ii) Government is like business, so just as business must be
sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must
government. (But the objectives of government and business
are completely different, so probably they will have to meet
different criteria.)

Proof:

Identify the two objects or events being compared and the
property which both are said to possess. Show that the two

Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the
evidence to the
contrary

Definition:

The proper conclusion of an inductive argument is denied
despite the evidence to the contrary.

Examples:

(i) Hugo has had twelve accidents n the last six months, yet
he insists that it is just a coincidence and not his fault.
(Inductively, the evidence is overwhelming that it is his fault.
This example borrowed from Barker, p. 189)
(ii) Poll after poll shows that the N.D.P will win fewer than
ten seats in Parliament. Yet the party leader insists that the
party is doing much better than the polls suggest. (The N.D.P.
in fact got nine seats.)

Proof:

About all you can do in such a case is to point to the strength
of the inference.

Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is
excluded
from consideration

Definition:

Important evidence which would undermine an inductive
argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement
that all relevant information be included is called the
"principle of total evidence".

Examples:

(i) Jones is Albertan, and most Albertans vote Tory, so Jones
will probably vote Tory. (The information left out is that
Jones lives in Edmonton, and that most people in Edmonton
vote Liberal or N.D.P.)
(ii) The Leafs will probably win this game because they've
won nine out of their last ten. (Eight of the Leafs' wins came
over last place teams, and today they are playing the first
place team.)

Proof:

Give the missing evidence and show that it changes the
outcome of the inductive argument. Note that it is not
sufficient simply to show that no

Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms

Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an
exception

Definition:

A general rule is applied when circumstances suggest that an
exception to the rule should apply.

Examples:

(i) The law says that you should not travel faster than 50
kph, thus even though your father could not breathe, you
should not have traveled faster than 50 kph.
(ii) It is good to return things you have borrowed. Therefore,
you should return this automatic rifle from the madman you
borrowed it from. (Adapted from Plato's Republic, Book I).

Proof:

Identify the generalization in question and show that it is not
a universal generalization. Then show that the circumstances
of this case suggest that the generalization ought not to apply.

Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should
apply

Definition:

An exception to a generalization is applied to cases where the
generalization should apply.

Examples:

(i) Because we allow terminally ill patients to use heroin, we
should allow everyone to use heroin.
(ii) Because you allowed Jill, who was hit by a truck, to
hand in her assignment late, you should allow the entire
class to hand in their assignments late.

Proof:

Identify the generalization in question and show how the
special case was an exception to the generalization.

Causal Fallacies

Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other

(post hoc ergo propter hoc )

Definition:

The name in Latin means "after this therefore because of this".
This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when
it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the
one thing was caused by the other.

Show that the correlation is coincidental by showing that: (i)
the effect would have occurred even if the cause did not
occur, or (ii) that the effect was caused by something other
than the suggested cause.

Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an
underlying cause

Definition:

One thing is held to cause another when in fact both are the
effect of a single underlying cause. This fallacy is often
understood as a special case of post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

Examples:

(i) We are experiencing high unemployment which s being
caused by a low consumer demand. (In fact, both may be
caused by high interest rates.)
(ii) You have a fever and this is causing you to break out in
spots. (In fact, both symptoms are caused by the measles.)

Proof:

Identify the two effects and show that they are caused by the
same underlying cause. It is necessary to describe the
underlying cause and prove that it causes each symptom.

Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to
other
causes of the effect

Definition:

The object or event identified as the cause of an effect is a
genuine cause, but insignificant when compared to the other
causes of that event.
Note that this fallacy does not apply when all other
contributing causes are equally insignificant. Thus, it is not a
fallacy to say that you helped cause defeat the Tory
government because you voted Reform, for your vote had as
much weight as any other vote, and hence is equally a part of
the cause.

Examples:

(i) Smoking is causing air pollution in Edmonton. (True, but
the effect of smoking is insignificant compared to the effect
of auto exhaust.)
(ii) By leaving your oven on overnight you are contributing
to global warming.

Proof:

Identify the much more significant cause.

Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed

Definition:

The relation between cause and effect is reversed.

Examples:

(i) Cancer causes smoking.
(ii) The increase in AIDS was caused by more sex education.
(In fact, the increase in sex education was caused by the
spread of AIDS.)

Proof:

Give a causal argument showing that the relation between
cause and effect has been reversed.

Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect

Definition:

The effect is caused by a number of objects or events, of
which the cause identified is only a part. A variation of this is
the feedback loop where the effect is itself a part of the cause.

Examples:

(i) The accident was caused by the poor location of the bush.
(True, but it wouldn't have occurred had the driver not been
drunk and the pedestrian not been jaywalking.)
(ii) The Challenger explosion was caused by the cold
weather. (True, however, it would not have occurred had the
O_rings been properly constructed.)
(iii) People are in fear because of increased crime. (True, but
this has lead people to break the law as a consequence of
their fear, which increases crime even more.)

Proof:

Show that all of the causes, and not just the one mentioned,
are required to produce the effect.

Missing the Point

Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises

( petitio principii )

Definition:

The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a
slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is
a consequence of the conclusion.

Examples:

(i) Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth.

(ii) We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists.
What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and
God never lies. (Here, we must agree that God exists in order
to believe that God wrote the Bible.)

Proof:

Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we
must already agree that the conclusion is true.

Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different
conclusion

( ignoratio elenchi )

Definition:

An argument which purports to prove one thing instead
proves a different conclusion.

Examples:

(i) You should support the new housing bill. We can't
continue to see people living in the streets; we must have
cheaper housing. (We may agree that housing s important
even though we disagree with the housing bill.)
(ii) I say we should support affirmative action. White males
have run the country for 500 years. They run most of
government and industry today. You can't deny that this
sort of discrimination is intolerable. (The author has proven
that there is discrimination, but not that affirmative action
will end that discrimination.)

Proof:

Show that the conclusion proved by the author is not the
conclusion that the author set out to prove.

Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's
best
argument

Definition:

The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

Examples:

(i) People who opposed the Charlottetown Accord probably just
wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in
Canada.
(ii) We should have conscription. People don't want to enter
the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they
should realize that there are more important things than
convenience.

Proof:

Show that the opposition's argument has been
misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger
argument. Describe the stronger argument.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings

Definition:

The same word is used with two different meanings.

Examples:

(i) Criminal actions are illegal, and all murder trials are
criminal actions, thus all murder trials are illegal. (Here the
term "criminal actions" is used with two different meanings.
Example borrowed from Copi.)
(ii) The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was
fine, I parked there.
(iii) All child_murderers are inhuman, thus, no child_
murderer is human. (From Barker, p. 164; this is called
"illicit obversion")
(iv) A plane is a carpenter's tool, and the Boeing 737 is a
plane, hence the Boeing 737 is a carpenter's tool. (Example
borrowed from Davis, p. 58)

Proof:

Identify the word which is used twice, then show that a
definition which is appropriate for one use of the word would
not be appropriate for the second use.

Amphibole: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations

Definition:

An amphibole occurs when the construction of a sentence
allows it to have two different meanings.

Examples:

(i) Last night I shot a burglar in my pajamas.
(ii) The Oracle of Delphi told Croseus that if he pursued the
war he would destroy a mighty kingdom. (What the Oracle
did not mention was that the kingdom he destroyed would
be his own. Adapted from Heroditus, The Histories.)
(iii) Save soap and waste paper. (From Copi, p. 115)

Proof:

Identify the ambiguous phrase and show the two possible
interpretations.

Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence
actually says

Definition:

Emphasis is used to suggest a meaning different from the
actual content of the proposition.

Examples:

(i) It would be illegal to give away
Free Beer!
(ii) The first mate, seeking revenge on the captain, wrote in
his journal, "The Captain was sober today." (He suggests, by
his emphasis, that the Captain is usually drunk. From Copi,
p. 117)

Category Errors

Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued
that
the whole has that property

Definition

Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued
that the whole has that property. That whole may be either an object
composed of different parts, or it may be a collection or set of
individual members.

Examples:

(i) The brick wall is six feet tall. Thus, the bricks in the wall are six
feet tall.
(ii) Germany is a militant country. Thus, each German is militant.
(iii) Conventional bombs did more damage in W.W. II than nuclear
bombs. Thus, a conventional bomb is more dangerous than a
nuclear bomb. (From Copi, p. 118)

Proof:

Show that the properties in question are the properties of the whole,
and not of each part or member or the whole. If necessary, describe
the parts to show that they could not have the properties of the
whole.

Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property

Definition:

Because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts
have that property. The whole in question may be either a whole
object or a collection or set of individual members.

Examples:

(i) Each brick is three inches high, thus, the brick wall is three
inches high.
(ii) Because the brain is capable of consciousness, each neural cell
in the brain must be capable of consciousness.

Proof:

Show that the properties in question are the properties of the parts,
and not of the whole. If necessary, describe the parts to show that
they could not have the properties of the whole.

Non Sequitur

Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A

Definition:

Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A

Examples:

(i) If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta,
thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises
are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)
(ii) If the mill were polluting the river then we would see an
increase in fish deaths. And fish deaths have increased. Thus,
the mill is polluting the river.

Proof:

Show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion
could be false. In general, show that B might be a
consequence of something other than A. For example, the fish
deaths might be caused by pesticide run_off, and not the mill.

Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B

Definition:

Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
Not A
Therefore, Not B

Examples:

(i) If you get hit by a car when you are six then you will die
young. But you were not hit by a car when you were six.
Thus you will not die young. (Of course, you could be hit by
a train at age seven, in which case you still die young.)
(ii) If I am in Calgary then I am in Alberta. I am not in
Calgary, thus, I am not in Alberta.

Proof:

Show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion
may be false. In particular, show that the consequence B may
occur even though A does not occur.

Inconsistency:
asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true

Definition:

The author asserts more than one proposition such that the
propositions cannot all be true. In such a case, the
propositions may be contradictories or they may be
contraries.

Examples:

(i) Montreal is about 200 km from Ottawa, while Toronto is
400 km from Ottawa. Toronto is closer to Ottawa than
Montreal.
(ii) John is taller than Jake, and Jake is taller than Fred,
while Fred is taller than John.

Proof:

Assume that one of the statements is true, and then use it as
a premise to show that one of the other statements is false.

Syllogistic Errors

Fallacy of Four Terms: a syllogism has four terms

(quaternio terminorum)

Definition:

A standard form categorical syllogism with four terms.

Examples:

(i) All dogs are animals, and all cats are mammals, so all dogs are mammals.

The four terms are: dogs, animals, cats and mammals.

Note:In many cases, the fallacy of four terms is a special case of equivocation. While the same
word is used, the word has different meanings, and hence the word is treated as two different
terms. Consider the following example:

(ii) Only man is born free, and no women are men, therefore, no women are born free.

The four terms are: man (in the sense of 'humanity'), man (in the sense of 'male'),
women and born free.

Proof:

Identify the four terms and where necessary state the meaning of each term.

Undistributed Middle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a
common property

Definition:

The middle term in the premises of a standard form categorical syllogism never refers to all of
the members of the category it describes.

Examples:

(i) All Russians were revolutionists, and all anarchists were revolutionist, therefore, all
anarchists were Russians.

The middle term is 'revolutionist'. While both Russians and anarchists share the common
property of being revolutionist, they may be separate groups of revolutionists, and so we
cannot
conclude that anarchists are otherwise the same as Russians in any way. Example from Copi
and Cohen, 208.

(ii) All trespassers are shot, and someone was shot, therefore, someone was a
trespasser.

The middle term is 'shot'. While 'someone' and 'trespassers' may share the property
of being shot, it doesn't follow that the someone in question was a trespasser; he may
have been the victim of a mugging.

Proof:

Show how each of the two categories identified in the conclusion could be separate groups even
though they share a common property.

Illicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only
mention some cases of the term in the predicate

Definition:

The predicate term of the conclusion refers to all members of that category, but the same term in
the premises refers only to some members of that category.

Examples:

(i) All Texans are Americans, and no Californians are Texans, therefore, no Californians are
Americans.

The predicate term in the conclusion is 'Americans'. The conclusion refers to all Americans
(every American is not a Californian, according to the conclusion). But the premises refer
only to
some Americans (those that are Texans).

Proof:

Show that there may be other members of the predicate category not mentioned in the premises
which
are contrary to the conclusion.

For example, from (i) above, one might argue, "While it's true that all Texans are Americans, it
is also
true that Ronald Reagan is American, but Ronald Reagan is Californian, so it is not true that No
Californians are Americans."

Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only
mention
some cases of the term in the subject

Definition:

The predicate term of the conclusion refers to all members of that category, but the same term in
the
premises refers only to some members of that category.

Examples:

(i) All Texans are Americans, and no Californians are Texans, therefore, no Californians are
Americans.

The predicate term in the conclusion is 'Americans'. The conclusion refers to all Americans
(every American is not a Californian, according to the conclusion). But the premises refer
only to
some Americans (those that are Texans).

Proof:

Show that there may be other members of the predicate category not mentioned in the premises
which are contrary to the conclusion.

For example, from (i) above, one might argue, "While it's true that all Texans are Americans, it
is also
true that Ronald Reagan is American, but Ronald Reagan is Californian, so it is not true that No
Californians are Americans."

Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative premises

Definition:

Important evidence which would undermine an inductive
argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement
that all relevant information be included is called the
"principle of total evidence".

Examples:

(i) Jones is Albertan, and most Albertans vote Tory, so Jones
will probably vote Tory. (The information left out is that
Jones lives in Edmonton, and that most people in Edmonton
vote Liberal or N.D.P.)
(ii) The Leafs will probably win this game because they've
won nine out of their last ten. (Eight of the Leafs' wins came
over last place teams, and today they are playing the first
place team.)

Proof:

Give the missing evidence and show that it changes the
outcome of the inductive argument. Note that it is not
sufficient simply to show that not all of the evidence was
included; it must be shown that the missing evidence will
change the conclusion.

Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise: as the name
implies

Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise

Definition:

The conclusion of a standard form categorical syllogism is affirmative, but at least one of the
premises is negative.

Examples:

(i) All mice are animals, and some animals are not dangerous, therefore some mice are
dangerous.
(ii) No honest people steal, and all honest people pay taxes, so some people who steal pay taxes.

Proof:

Assume that the premises are true. Find an example which allows the premises to be true but
which clearly contradicts the conclusion.

Existential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises

Definition:

A standard form categorical syllogism with two universal premises has a particular conclusion.

The idea is that some universal properties need not be instantiated. It may be true that 'all
trespassers
will be shot' even if there are no trespassers. It may be true that 'all brakelesstrains are dangerous'
even
though there are no brakelesstrains. That is the point of this fallacy.

Examples:

(i) All mice are animals, and all animals are dangerous, so some mice are dangerous.
(ii) No honest people steal, and all honest people pay taxes, so some honest people pay taxes.

Proof:

Assume that the premises are true, but that there are no instances of the category described. For
example, in (i) above, assume there are no mice, and in (ii) above, assume there are no honest
people.
This shows that the conclusion is false.

Fallacies of Explanation

Subverted Support: (The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist)

Definition

An explanation is intended to explain who some phenomenon happens. The explanation is
fallacious if
the phenomenon does not actually happen of if there is no evidence that it does happen.

Examples

(i) The reason why most bachelors are timid is that their mothers were domineering.
(This attempts to explain why most bachelors are timid. However, it is not the case that most
bachelors are timid.)

(ii) John went to the store because he wanted to see Maria.
(This is a fallacy if, in fact, John went to the library.)

(iii) The reason why most people oppose the strike is that they are afraid of losing their jobs.
(This attempts to explain why workers oppose the strike. But suppose they just voted to continue
the
strike, Then in fact, they don't oppose the strike. [This sounds made up, but it actually
happened.])

Proof

Identify the phenomenon which is being explained. Show that there is no reason to believe that
the
phenomenon has actually occurred.

Non_support: (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased)

Definition

An explanation is intended to explain who some phenomenon happens. In this case, there is
evidence
that the phenomenon occurred, but it is trumped up, biased or ad hoc evidence.

Examples

(i) The reason why most bachelors are timid is that their mothers were domineering.
(This attempts to explain why most bachelors are timid. However, it is shown that the author
bases
his generalization on two bachelors he once knew, both of whom were timid.)

(ii) The reason why I get four or better on my evaluations is that my students love me.
(This is a fallacy when evaluations which score four or less are discarded on the grounds that the
students did not understand the question.)

(iii) The reason why Alberta has the lowest tuition in Canada is that tuition hikes have lagged
behind
other provinces.
(Lower tuitions in three other provinces _ Quebec, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia _ were
dismissed
as "special cases" [again this is an actual example])

Proof

Identify the phenomenon which is being explained. Show that the evidence advanced to support
the
existence of the phenomenon was manipulated in some way.

Untestability: (The theory which explains cannot be tested)

Definition

The theory advanced to explain why some phenomena occurs cannot be tested.

We test a theory by means of its predictions. For example, a theory may predict that light bends
under
certain conditions, or that a liquid will change color if sprayed with acid, or that a psychotic
person
will respond badly to particular stimuli. If the predicted event fails to occur, then this is evidence
against the theory.

A theory cannot be tested when it makes no predictions. It is also untestable when it predicts
events
which would occur whether or not the theory were true.

Examples

(i) Aircraft in the mid_Atlantic disappear because of the effect of the Bermuda Triangle, a force
so
subtle it cannot be measured on any instrument.
(The force of the Bermuda Triangle has no effect other than the occasional downing of aircraft.
The only possible prediction is that more aircraft will be lost. But this is likely to happen
whether or
not the theory is true.)

(ii) I won the lottery because my psychic aura made me win.
(The way to test this theory to try it again. But the person responds that her aura worked for that
one case only. There is thus no way to determine whether the win was the result of an aura of of
luck.)

(iii) The reason why everything exists is that God created it.
(This may be true, but as an explanation it carries no weight at all, because there is no way to
test
the theory. No evidence in the world could possibly show that this theory is false, because any
evidence would have to be created by God, according to the theory.)

(iv) NyQuil makes you go to sleep because it has a dormative formula.
(When pressed, the manufacturers define a "dormative formula" as "something which makes you
sleep". To test this theory, we would find something else which contains the domative formular
and
see if makes you go to sleep. But how do we find something else which contains the dormative
formula? We look for things which make you go to sleep. But we could predict that things which
make you sleep will make you sleep, no matter what the theory says. The theory is empty.)

Proof

Identify the theory. Show that it makes no predictions, or that the predictions it does make
cannot
ever be wrong, even if the theory is false.

Limited Scope: (The theory which explains can only explain one thing)

Definition

The theory doesn't explain anything other than the phenomenon it explains.

Examples

(i) There was hostility toward hippies in the 1960s because of their parents' resentment toward
children.
(This theory is flawed because it explains hostility toward hippies, and nothing else. A better
theory
would be to say there was hostility toward hippies because hippies are different, and people fear
things which are different. This theory would explain not only hostility toward hippies, but also
other forms of hostility.)

(ii) People get schizophrenia because different parts of their brains split apart.
(Again, this theory explains schizophrenia _ and nothing else.)

Proof

Identify the theory and the phenomenon it explains. Show that the theory does not explain
anything
else. Argue that theories which explain only one phenomenon are likely to be incomplete, at
best.

Limited Depth: (The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes)

Definition

Theories explain phenomena by appealing to some underlying cause or phenomena. Theories
which
do not appeal to an underlying cause, and instead simply appeal to membership in a category,
commit
the fallacy of limited depth.

Examples

(i) My cat likes tuna because she's a cat.
(This theory asserts only that cats like tuna, without explaining why cats like tuna. It thus does
not
explain why my cat likes tuna.)

(ii) Ronald Reagan was militaristic because he was American.
(True, he was American, but what was it about being American that made him militaristic? What
caused him to act in this way? The theory does not tell us, and hence, does not offer a good
explanation.)

(iii) You're just saying that because you belong to the union.
(This attempt at dismissal tries to explain your behavior as frivolous. However, it fails because it
is
not an explanation at all. Suppose everyone in the union were to say that. Then what? We have
to
get deeper _ we have to ask why they would say that _ before we can decide that what they are
saying is frivolous.)

Proof

Theories of this sort attempt to explain a phenomenon by showing that it is part of a category of
similar phenomenon. Accept this, then press for an explanation of the wider category of
phenomenon.
Argue that a theory refers to a cause, not a classification.

Fallacies of Definition

Too Broad (The definition includes items which should not be included)

Definition

The definition includes items which should not be included.

Examples

(i) An apple is something which is red and round.
(The planet Mars is red and round. So it is included in the definition. But obviously it is not an
apple.)

(ii) A figure is square if and only if it has four sides of equal length.
(Not only squares have four sides of equal length; trapezoids do as well.

Proof

Identify the term being defined. Identify the conditions in the definition. Find an item which
meets the
condition but is obviously not an instance of the term.

Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the items which should be included)

Definition

The definition does not include items which should be included.

Examples

(i) An apple is something which is red and round.
(Golden Delicious apples are apples, however, they are not red (they are yellow). Thus they are
not
included in the definition, however, they should be.)

(ii) A book is pornographic if and only if it contains pictures of naked people.
(The books written by the Marquis de Sade do not contain pictures. However, they are widely
regarded as pornographic. Thus, the definition is too narrow.

(iii) Something is music if and only if it is played on a piano.
(A drum solo cannot be played on a piano, yet it is still considered music.)

Proof

Identify the term being defined. Identify the conditions in the definition. Find an item which is
an
instance of the term but does not meet the conditions.

Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult to understand than the word or concept
being
defined)

Definition

The definition is harder to understand than the term being defined.

Examples

(i) Someone is lascivious if and only if he is wanton.
(The term being defined is "lascivious". But the meaning of the term "wanton" is just as obscure
as
the term "lascivious". So this definition fails to elucidate.)

(ii) An object is beautiful if and only if it is aesthetically successful.
(The term "aesthetically successful" is harder to understand than the term "beautiful".

Proof

Identify the term being defined. Identify the conditions in the definition. Show that the
conditions are
no more clearly defined than the term being defined.

Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition)

Definition

The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition.

(A circular definition is a special case of a Failure to Elucidate.)

Examples

(i) An animal is human if and only if it has human parents.
(The term being defined is "human". But in order to find a human, we would need to find human
parents. To find human parents we would already need to know what a human is.)

(ii) A book is pornographic if and only if it contains pornography.
(We would need to know what pornography is in order to tell whether a book is pornographic.)

Proof

Identify the term being defined. Identify the conditions in the definition. Show that at least one
term
used in the conditions is the same as the term being defined.

Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self_contradictory)

Definition

The definition is self_contradictory.

Examples

(i) A society is free if and only if liberty is maximized and people are required to take
responsibility for
their actions.
(Definitions of this sort are fairly common, especially on the internet. However, if a person is
required to do something, then that person's liberty is not maximized.)

(ii) People are eligible to apply for a learner's permit (to drive) if they have (a) no previous
driving
experience, (b) access to a vehicle, and (c) experience operating a motor vehicle.
(A person cannot have experience operating a motor vehicle if they have no previous driving
experience.)

Proof

Identify the conditions in the definition. Show that they cannot all be true at the same time (in
particular, assume that one of the conditions is true, then show from this that another of the
conditions
must be false).